SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).---Mr. S. M. Iqbal had approached this Tribunal by way of appeal against an order of the departmental autho--rity relating the fixation of his emoluments. It appears that his appeal was dismissed on 9th April, 1977 without going into merits of the case on the ground that it was pre-mature as he had not exhausted departmental remedy. Thereafter Mr. Iqbal pursued his departmental remedy by filing a representation on 24th March, 1976. Before a derision could be taken on that representation, Mr. Iqbal died on 24th December, 1977 and after his death, the Department sent a reply that since the Service Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of Mr. Iqbal, the case regarding fixation of his pay stood closed.
2. Mst. Asghari Khanum Iqbal and other legal heirs of Mr. Iqbal deceased have now filed this appeal purporting to be under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, for the same remedy which Mr. Iqbal had sought during his life time.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that in this case right to sue survived as it is a matter of pecuniary benefits which devolved on the heirs of Mr. Iqbal and, therefore, the appeal by there is competent. He contended that if it was a case of seniority or promotion etc, then the present appellants could not approach this Tribunal, but in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the appellants cannot get redress from any other forum except this Tribunal. We are afraid there is no substance in this argument. An appeal under section 4 can be filed only by a "Civil Servant" aggrieved by a final order whether original or appellate. The present appellants not being "civil servants" but heirs of a civil servant, have no legal status to approach this Tribunal. Service Tribunals Act, 1973, does not provide any remedy in such matters and it would be legally incorrect to read something in the law which is not there. Learned counsel then argued that if he goes to civil Courts, the civil Court will not entertain the suit of the appellants because of the bar placed by law in such matters. We do not agree with this contention. When we hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of a deceased civil servant, then the question of ouster of any other forum does not arise. As far as this Tribunal is concerned, it has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the heirs of a deceased civil servant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
4. Before parting with his order, we may point out that the order of the Tribunal passed on 9th April, 1977 was not an order on merits and it does no debar the departmental authority to give redress to the appellants in respect of the pecuniary benefits which Mr. S. M. Iqbal was claiming. In fact the departmental authority should have decided the representation of Mr. S. M. Iqbal on its own merits and should not have closed the case simply because the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that it was premature.